[the broken]

Quote

'Lechsinka Polish name'

So I did, that, you know what comes up?

My linkhttps://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Lechsinska

Not the same, but close enough for a plausible misspelling.

[polishgenius]

the broken, on 16 March 2023 - 12:24 PM, said:

Quote

'Lechsinka Polish name'

So I did, that, you know what comes up?

My linkhttps://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Lechsinska

Not the same, but close enough for a plausible misspelling.

That wasn't added to that database by a Polish person, and the reason I know that is it posits two different pronunciations- not possible in Polish, a phonetically rendered language- neither of which are anywhere close to how you'd pronounce 'Lechsinska' written down. Also, adding that second s makes it sound like a surname.

Also because googling it gives that answer and another different babyname database (which gives a frankly implausble etymology of it meaning 'wood nymph'), but not one single example, current or historical, of someone actually called that.

Seriously, call me nitpicky if you wish, say it doesn't matter if you wish, those are fair positions. Stop trying to convince a Polish speaker that you understand it better than I do.

QuickTidal, on 16 March 2023 - 12:07 PM, said:

See but I take issue with this concept. The idea that someone does something people don't like, means it's open season to nitpick the hell out of their entire career and basically bury them under it? Like come on. That's GishGalloping. Just move from thing you deem a problem to thing you deem a problem so there's enough to basically write them off forever. I get that people are annoyed by the Trans issue with her, but everything else is an attempt to help justify the level of unbelievable toxicity aimed at her by saying "See, she ALSO did all this, she's evil!"

Yeah well as I say I don't personally think she was being racist or deliberate with any of the other stuff but I don't blame people who do. And I don't see why they shouldn't, really- if someone shows themselves to be bigoted in one arena, and willing to engage with people who are bigoted on everything, why wouldn't people start to look back and doubt her intentions all along?



That becomes even more stark when you see the stuff she's said in the last couple of days. How are you meant to separate art from the artist when she's actively smashing the art together with what she's standing for now?

https://twitter.com/...049640897363969


https://twitter.com/...935195432992768


Just to be clear: what she's doing there is comparing the trans rights movement to Nazis. Because that's what the Death Eaters are. But, in doing so, she's asking us to reframe how we read Death Eaters, to believe all along they were meant to be outsiders fighting to exist (evilly, but to exist).

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 16 March 2023 - 04:18 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Rowling is very much a proponent of the Trump style of PR - say the most horrific stuff, the bigliest stuff, as long as it hurts the groups she hates.

She's a vile bigot and frankly that should be clear for all to see. And like PG says above, it's entirely valid to question her intentions elsewhere when she's actively courting the nastiest elements of the right wing.

[QuickTidal]

Maark Abbott, on 16 March 2023 - 04:42 PM, said:

Rowling is very much a proponent of the Trump style of PR - say the most horrific stuff, the bigliest stuff, as long as it hurts the groups she hates.

She's a vile bigot and frankly that should be clear for all to see. And like PG says above, it's entirely valid to question her intentions elsewhere when she's actively courting the nastiest elements of the right wing.

?

I felt the interview was actually pretty nuanced with her takes (even if you consider them wrong), and none of it was particularly "the most horrific stuff"...more of just her entrenched opinion as a 65+ year old woman who's struggled with the patriarchy her whole life, and calls out the disingenuousness of the lack of nuance to the conversation as a whole in favour of slinging deliberately black and white mud....cause that's easier I guess?

And in one section she literally says "Time will tell whether I've got this wrong. I can only say that I've thought about it deeply and hard and long. And I've listened, I promise, to the other side"...Trump would never say anything anywhere near that conciliatory if he was debating someone. EVER. If anything, this should be telling to people that over time maybe she'll actually get it, no?

Those don't sound Trumplike to me, they sound like someone who truly believes that she's supporting women, and is not anti-trans from her POV, but does in instances try to see what the other side is seeing in her views that are bad.

Maark Abbott, on 16 March 2023 - 04:42 PM, said:

the groups she hates

Sorry, groups plural? I know you think she hates Trans people....but are there others? I thought she was pretty progressive on most other topics, and it was only the Trans community that she was deemed offsides on.

[polishgenius]

Yeah, I don't think she's Trumpian. Unlike QT I'm not particularly keen to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her motives- I think she's rather the opposite, in that for a long time deliberately avoided saying anything direct, instead slinging indirect insults, false concerns and linking with people who had said worse but always with the plausible deniability of 'I didn't know'. But she doesn't just say whatever.


Even in these podcasts, even though she is being fairly direct about it, she's avoiding nailing down why she thinks it's fair to deny trans people their rights in response to vague fears about violence that, let's be clear, even in her concerns is mostly about cis men and not trans people (not that there being violent trans people is a good reason to deny all trans people their rights, but even the bigots know that that scenario is rare enough and easy to deal with enough that it becomes about 'men in women's spaces'). Like, she's still not saying too much you can directly challenge her on. It's all 'oh there's this big evil movement looking to destroy feminism'. How trans people do this... isn't clear.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 16 March 2023 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yeah, I don't think she's Trumpian. Unlike QT I'm not particularly keen to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her motives- I think she's rather the opposite, in that for a long time deliberately avoided saying anything direct, instead slinging indirect insults, false concerns and linking with people who had said worse but always with the plausible deniability of 'I didn't know'. But she doesn't just say whatever.

I should be clear, I don't think I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt either...I'm simply saying I can see how a 65 year old Boomer would come to the conclusions she has that we don't, and why it would be hard for her to see it in a more progressive way. Not that it's right, or we should not get on her about that....but that portion of the conversation is entirely missing in the wider debates, and I feel they are very relevant to the conversation, because if you refuse to look at it through that lens, you will just see her as appearing evil out the ether in 2013 (or whenever it was), which does the conversation zero favours.

[polishgenius]

Fair enough.

My problem is that I understand initially going 'aaaaaaaa I don't understand', and even feeling under threat.

But she's had ample time to reflect and she's only ever strengthened her stance, which is what's angering to me.

And saddening, tbh.

[the broken]

I mean you literally said that googling a specific search would have revealed that that was a fake name, so I googled your suggested search term and the first non JKR related thing that comes up is something mistakenly suggesting it was a real name. So the '30 seconds of googling approach would have led JKR to make the exact mistake she did. It's not to say it is correct Polish, just that it was a plausible mistake for an English speaker without needing to be some kind of deliberate insult.

[polishgenius]

I mean, okay, fair enough, in a totally literal sense I was wrong. In an actual practical sense I was right, though, because a google that reveals two unsourced websites and literally no other usage of it in history does in fact reveal it's not a real name.

[Mentalist]

polishgenius, on 16 March 2023 - 04:10 PM, said:

the broken, on 16 March 2023 - 12:24 PM, said:

Quote

'Lechsinka Polish name'

So I did, that, you know what comes up?

My linkhttps://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Lechsinska

Not the same, but close enough for a plausible misspelling.

That wasn't added to that database by a Polish person, and the reason I know that is it posits two different pronunciations- not possible in Polish, a phonetically rendered language- neither of which are anywhere close to how you'd pronounce 'Lechsinska' written down. Also, adding that second s makes it sound like a surname.

Also because googling it gives that answer and another different babyname database (which gives a frankly implausble etymology of it meaning 'wood nymph'), but not one single example, current or historical, of someone actually called that.

Seriously, call me nitpicky if you wish, say it doesn't matter if you wish, those are fair positions. Stop trying to convince a Polish speaker that you understand it better than I do.

QuickTidal, on 16 March 2023 - 12:07 PM, said:

See but I take issue with this concept. The idea that someone does something people don't like, means it's open season to nitpick the hell out of their entire career and basically bury them under it? Like come on. That's GishGalloping. Just move from thing you deem a problem to thing you deem a problem so there's enough to basically write them off forever. I get that people are annoyed by the Trans issue with her, but everything else is an attempt to help justify the level of unbelievable toxicity aimed at her by saying "See, she ALSO did all this, she's evil!"

Yeah well as I say I don't personally think she was being racist or deliberate with any of the other stuff but I don't blame people who do. And I don't see why they shouldn't, really- if someone shows themselves to be bigoted in one arena, and willing to engage with people who are bigoted on everything, why wouldn't people start to look back and doubt her intentions all along?



That becomes even more stark when you see the stuff she's said in the last couple of days. How are you meant to separate art from the artist when she's actively smashing the art together with what she's standing for now?

https://twitter.com/...049640897363969


https://twitter.com/...935195432992768


Just to be clear: what she's doing there is comparing the trans rights movement to Nazis. Because that's what the Death Eaters are. But, in doing so, she's asking us to reframe how we read Death Eaters, to believe all along they were meant to be outsiders fighting to exist (evilly, but to exist).

That is absolutely a surname, one which is (likely) a Ukrainian rendition of the female version of the approximation of the surname of the pretender to the Polish throne during the Great Northern War. Done poorly.